Cancelled in L.A.

I had been invited to speak later this month at St. John’s Seminary in Los Angeles. I have now been informed that the event is being cancelled, due to complaints from unnamed critics who find me too controversial. Meanwhile, the always controversial Fr. James Martin will be speaking this month at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress, on the theme “Hope on the Horizon: LGBTQ Catholic Update 2026.” It appears that, for some in Archbishop Gomez‘s archdiocese, Fr. Martin is welcome to speak about that topic to educators of Catholic youth, but I am not welcome to speak to seminarians about how to defend the Church’s teaching on the soul’s immortality.

No, AI does not have human-level intelligence

In an article at Nature, Eddy Keming Chen, Mikhail Belkin, Leon Bergen, and David Danks ask “Does AI already have human-level intelligence?” and claim that “the evidence is clear” that the answer is Yes.  (Though the article is partially pay-walled, a read-only PDF is available here.)  But as is typical with bold claims about AI, their arguments are underwhelming, riddled with begged questions and other fallacies.

Defining “intelligence”

Naturally, before we can establish that AI has genuine intelligence, we need to make clear what it would be for it to have intelligence, and how we could go about determining that it has it.  The first is a metaphysical question, the second an epistemological question.  Our authors make no serious attempt to answer either one.

Van Fraassen on microscopy

Philosopher of science Bas van Fraassen is well known for defending the “constructive empiricist” position that the success of a scientific theory does not compel us to believe in the existence of the theoretical entities it posits.  In his view, a scientific theory aims only to be empirically adequate, in the sense of correctly describing the world of observable things.  When a theory is successful insofar as it makes accurate predictions or opens the door to technological advances, this gives us reason to believe only that it is empirically adequate, not that it tells us anything about a realm beyond what is observable.

Scientific realists take the contrary view that the success of a theory does give us reason to believe in the theoretical entities it posits.  Among other arguments, they sometimes appeal to the idea that entities that at one time were unobservable later became observable with the rise of new technologies, such as telescopes, electron microscopes, and ordinary microscopes.  This shows, they argue, that the boundary between observable and unobservable entities is not sharp enough to justify skepticism about the latter.

Socratic politics: Lessons from the Gorgias

Almost forty years ago, the liberal pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty published an essay titled “The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy.”  I recall hating it immediately, from the title alone.  The sentiment was appalling coming from anyone, but especially from a philosopher.  Philosophy aims at the true and the good, democracy merely at what the majority happens to want.  That can sometimes be false and very bad indeed – and in one notorious case it was the execution of Socrates, the model for all philosophers.  How could philosophy not have the priority?

Prioritizing democracy

But what exactly is it for either to have “priority” to the other?  What Rorty had in mind is this.  The liberal democratic tradition has pushed religion ever further out of the public square.  Theology is now widely regarded as a purely private interest whose claims have no bearing on the political order.  But for centuries, liberalism took philosophy to retain political relevance.  In particular, liberal theorists took their favored polity to require philosophical foundations – in Locke’s natural rights theory, Mill’s utilitarianism, or whatever.

Church history does not support Trump’s expansionism

Some Catholic voices online have been suggesting that the example of Spanish colonialism justifies the Trump administration’s expansionist foreign policy – including the threat to take Greenland by force.  Catholic podcaster Matt Walsh, with whom I recently had a lively exchange about these matters on Twitter/X, appeals to Catholic colonialism and also claims that a war to secure resources is "totally legitimate."  Others appeal to the Crusades, or to ancient Israel’s conquest of Canaan.  In a new article at First Things, I argue that all of these arguments are fallacious.  They ignore crucial moral and theological differences between the cases.  Church history provides no support for Trump’s jingoistic expansionism.

Pope Leo XIV on politics and the death penalty

From a couple of posts today at Twitter/X, commenting on Pope Leo’s address to the diplomatic corps at the Vatican:

A marvelous address by @Pontifex that condemns the pathologies of both the woke left and the jingoist right. Against the left, he denounces “the so-called ‘right to safe abortion,’” warns of “a subtle form of religious discrimination against Christians” by which they are “restricted in their ability to proclaim the truths of the Gospel for political or ideological reasons,” and decries “a new Orwellian-style language…which, in an attempt to be increasingly inclusive, ends up excluding those who do not conform to the ideologies that are fueling it.” Against the right, he warns of “excessive nationalism," affirms "the importance of international humanitarian law," and notes that “a diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force… peace is sought through weapons as a condition for asserting one’s own dominion." And he decries the fact that on every side of our political culture and social media, “language is becoming more and more a weapon with which to deceive, or to strike and offend opponents” rather than used “to express distinct and clear realities unequivocally.”

(From Twitter/X)

Review of Gorman

Readers who have access to the journal The Thomist might be interested in my review of Michael Gorman’s terrific book A Contemporary Introduction to Thomistic Metaphysics, which appears in the January 2026 issue.

Interview on the Venezuela situation

In an interview with Edward Pentin published at his Substack, I discuss just war doctrine, the Venezuela situation, and the false choice between globalism and jingoism.

On Searle at First Things

On the Editor’s Desk podcast at First Things, Rusty Reno and I discuss John Searle and his place in contemporary philosophy. (The take-off point of our discussion is my recent article on Searle in the magazine.)

Some basic principles of masculinity

From Twitter/X today, inspired by an excellent article by Justin Lee:

Catholic natural law thinkers on nation versus race

As I’ve noted many times (e.g. here and here), natural law theory and Catholic moral theology both affirm the indispensable role in human life of the nation, which is a natural social formation.  The nation is an extension of the family, and like family members, citizens of a nation are typically related by common ancestry.  However, in neither case is this strictly necessary.  Just as someone might become part of a family by marriage or adoption, so too might someone become part of a nation through immigration and assimilation.  Moreover, nations are much looser social formations than families, and common descent is much less essential to them than it is to the family.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all my readers. I love you all (including the grinches out there). May God bless you and yours!

Return of the missing links

My Christmas gift to you, dear readers – a revival of the blog’s “links of interest” posts, by popular demand.  Let’s get to it:

J.P. Andrew interviews Rob Koons and Daniel Bonevac about their two forthcoming books on Aquinas’s Five Ways.

At The New Yorker, Rachel Aviv reveals that neurologist Oliver Sacks made up many of the details of his famous case studies.

Sohrab Ahmari on the late Norman Podhoretz, at UnHerd.

At Fusion, Oliver Traldi on John Searle’s forgotten book The Campus War.

Jacob Savage on the lost generation that DEI created, at Compact.

Lawful authority in just war doctrine

In an earlier article, I set out the conditions that traditional just war doctrine says a war must meet in order to be morally legitimate, and argued that a war with Venezuela would not meet them.  Here I want to look more closely at one of those conditions, namely that a war can be just only if carried out by lawful authority.  It seems to me that many of those defending a prospective war with Venezuela too glibly assume that this condition has been met, and focus almost exclusively on what they take to be the justice of the cause.  I don’t think the justice of the cause has in fact been established, and indeed it has only become more doubtful in the week since my first article appeared.  But even if it had been established, that is by no means the only crucial consideration.

Kant’s claustrophobic metaphysics (Updated)

My review of Marcus Willaschek’s Kant: A Revolution in Thinking appears in the latest issue of the Claremont Review of Books.

UPDATE 12/20: The review is no longer behind a paywall.

Would a U.S. war against Venezuela be just?

To all appearances, the United States is preparing for war with Venezuela.  For months now, American military forces have been blowing up Venezuelan boats said to be carrying drugs.  The U.S. has deployed a fleet of warships off the country’s coast.  President Trump has said that “this is war” and that “very soon we’re going to start doing it on land too,” and he has ordered the closure of airspace over Venezuela.  He has also declared that Nicolas Maduro’s “days are numbered” as president of Venezuela and ordered him to resign and leave the country.  And it has been reported that the administration is planning for a post-Maduro Venezuela.

It's an open thread!

We’re due for an open thread.  Now is your chance to bring up matters that would otherwise be off-topic.  For example, sometimes readers want to respond to something I said on Twitter/X (and write up such a comment under a post here – where it doesn’t get past moderation if it’s not on topic).  But feel free to bring up whatever you like.  From Cantor’s continuum problem to Canter’s Deli, from Gertrude Stein to grapefruit wine, from Jack Kirby to Kier Kirby, everything is fair game for discussion.  Just keep it civil and classy, as always.  Previous open threads archived here.

Liberalism and the virtue of gratitude

In a new essay at Postliberal Order, I reflect on the virtue of gratitude or thanksgiving and the ways it tends to be eroded in liberal societies.

Pope Leo on immigration enforcement

Pope Leo was recently asked by a reporter about the deportation and detention of illegal immigrants.  In response, he made the following remarks:

I think we have to look for ways of treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have.  If people are in the United States illegally, there are ways to treat that.  There are courts, there’s a system of justice.  I think there are a lot of problems in the system.  No one has said that the United States should have open borders.  I think every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter.  But when people are living good lives, and many of them for ten, fifteen, twenty years, to treat them in a way that is extremely disrespectful to say the least, and there has been some violence unfortunately, I think that the Bishops have been very clear in what they said and I think that I would just invite all people in the United States to listen to them.

This is a refreshingly calm, reasonable, and nuanced approach.  As I have shown in earlier articles (at Public Discourse and at UnHerd), the Church has traditionally affirmed both that wealthy nations have a general obligation to welcome immigrants to the extent they are able, but also that they are not obligated to let in all who seek to enter, that they may put conditions on entry that take account of the economic needs and cultural cohesion of the receiving nation, and that immigrants must obey the law.

Searle contra deconstruction

In a new essay at Postliberal Order, I recall the late John Searle’s critique of deconstructionism and postmodernism more generally, which were major influences on today’s woke ideologies.

Remembering John Searle

I wrote an obituary for John Searle, which appears in the December 2025 issue of First Things.

Cardinal Fernández on doctrinal clarity

From Twitter/X today, apropos of Mater Populi Fidelis:

There are two sides to the Catholic immigration debate

Everyone knows that the Catholic Church teaches that wealthy nations ought to welcome immigrants.  It is less well known that she also teaches that a nation may put conditions on immigration, that it need not take in all those who want to enter it, and that those it does allow in must follow the law. In an article at UnHerd, I spell out this neglected side of Catholic teaching.  Defenders and critics of Trump administration policy alike can appeal to moral premises from the Church’s tradition.

Vallicella on Immortal Souls

At his Substack Philosophy in Progress, my old buddy Bill Vallicella engages with my book Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature.  Bill kindly opines: “[It] may well be the best compendium of Thomist philosophical anthropology presently available.  I strongly recommend it.”  All the same, he has doubts about the compatibility of two of the books key themes: the Aristotelian hylomorphic conception of the soul as the form of the body, and the continued existence of any particular individual’s soul after the death of his body.  Let’s take a look at his objection.

Fastiggi and Sonna on Catholicism and capital punishment (Updated)

Recently, theologian Robert Fastiggi was interviewed about the topic of the Church and the death penalty by apologist Suan Sonna on his podcast Intellectual Catholicism.  Fastiggi’s views are the focus of the discussion, but Sonna, who largely agrees with him, adds some points of his own.  Their main concern in the discussion is to try to defend the changes Pope Francis made to the Church’s presentation of her teaching on the subject. 

I appreciate their civility, and Fastiggi’s call at the end of the interview for charity in dealing with those who disagree.  But their attempt fails.  Much of what Fastiggi has to say are reheated claims that I have already refuted in past exchanges with him, such as the two-part essay I wrote in response to his series on the death penalty at Where Peter Is.  (You can find it here and here.  The essay was reprinted as a single long article in Ultramontanism and Tradition, edited by Peter Kwasniewski.)  Fastiggi simply repeats his assertions without acknowledging, much less answering, my rebuttals.  He also makes some new claims, which are no more plausible than the older ones.  Let’s take a look.

Against flag burning

In a new essay at Postliberal Order, I argue that burning the flag as an expression of contempt for one’s country is contrary to the virtue of piety, is something we therefore have no right to do under natural law, and may, in principle, therefore be outlawed by the state.  I also argue that the Supreme Court was, in Texas v. Johnson, mistaken in claiming that a right to burn the flag is implied by the U.S. constitution.

John Searle (1932-2025)

Daily Nous has reported that John Searle has died.  Searle was one of the true greats of contemporary philosophy, having made huge and lasting contributions to several of its subdisciplines, but especially to philosophy of mind and philosophy of language.  His work had an enormous influence on me in my undergrad and graduate student years.  His books Minds, Brains, and Science, Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind, Speech Acts, and The Rediscovery of the Mind were especially formative.  And his uncommonly lucid style was the main model for my own approach to philosophical writing.  I had the pleasure of meeting and talking to him on several occasions, and Steven Postrel and I interviewed him for Reason magazine over twenty-five years ago.

How not to limit free speech

I am by no means a free speech absolutist.  In an article at Postliberal Order a couple of years ago, I set out the natural law position on the issue, noting that the teleology or final cause of our rational and communicative faculties entails not only a broad range of freedom of expression, but also definite limits.  There can be no natural right to expression that is positively contrary to what is good for us given our nature as rational social animals.  However, that by no means entails that just any old limitation on free speech imposed in the name of a good cause is a good idea, or even justifiable in principle.

Thucydides’ times and ours

All of my readers will no doubt have been following the horrific and heartbreaking news of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and its aftermath.  As those who follow me on Twitter/X know, I have had a lot to say about the matter there.  One of Twitter’s advantages over traditional blogging is that it is more conducive to running commentary on unfolding events.  But because some readers of this blog are not on Twitter, it seems appropriate to comment here as well.

When major and shocking events occur, there is, of course, a tendency for people to respond more emotionally than rationally, and to overinterpret their significance.  But it seems to me that two general points can safely be made about the current situation.

Is mandatory vaccination intrinsically wrong?

Florida governor Ron DeSantis and state Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo have announced that they will be ending all mandatory vaccination in the state.  President Trump has criticized them for this, saying that “some vaccines… should be used otherwise some people are going to catch [diseases] and they endanger other people.”  I have long supported DeSantis and have been critical of Trump, but on this issue Trump is right and DeSantis is wrong. 

That is by no means to say that all mandatory vaccinations are defensible.  As I have argued, the Covid shot should never have been mandatory.  But it goes way too far to claim, as Ladapo does, that all mandatory vaccination as such is “immoral” and amounts to “slavery.”  The truth lies in the middle ground position that while there is a moral presumption against a mandate, in some cases that presumption can be overridden and it can be licit for governments to require vaccination.  Sweeping statements of either extreme kind are wrong, and we need to go case by case.

Maimonides on negative theology

Negative theology (also known as apophatic theology) is the approach to understanding the divine nature that emphasizes that what we know about God is what he is not rather than what he is.  One might take the strong view that all of our knowledge of God’s nature is negative in this way, or the weaker position that much (but not all) such knowledge is negative.  The medieval Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) is among the most famous of negative theologians.  He takes the stronger position.  More precisely, his view is that when we predicate something of God, we are describing either his effects in the world of our experience, or the divine nature itself, and in the latter case we must understand our predications in a purely negative way.

Diabolical modernity

Satan tempted Christ to avoid the cross, and offer us instead the satisfaction of our appetites, marvels or wonders, and political salvation – exactly what modern market economies, science, and liberal democracy promise us.  In my latest essay at Postliberal Order, I discuss Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s analysis of the diabolical, and the light it sheds on the character of the modern world.

Hanson on observation

According to the conception of scientific method traditionally associated with Francis Bacon, science ought to begin with the accumulation of observations unbiased by any theoretical preconceptions.  The idea is that only such theory-neutral evidence could provide an objective basis on which to choose between theories.  It became a commonplace of twentieth-century philosophy of science that this ideal of theory-neutral observation is illusory, and that in reality all observation is inescapably theory-laden (to use the standard jargon).  That is to say, even to describe what it is we observe, we cannot avoid making use of theoretical assumptions about its nature, circumstances, and so on.

Newman on capital punishment

It was announced last week that Pope Leo XIV will be declaring St. John Henry Newman to be a Doctor of the Church.  As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, the Church proclaims someone to be a Doctor on account of “eminent learning” and “a high degree of sanctity.”  This combination makes a Doctor an exemplary guide to matters of faith and morals.  To be sure, the Doctors are not infallible.  Their authority is not as great as that of scripture, the consensus of the Church Fathers, or the definitive statements of the Church’s magisterium.  All the same, their authority is considerable.  As Aquinas notes, appeal to the authority of the Doctors of the Church is “one that may properly be used” in addressing doctrinal questions, even if such an appeal by itself yields “probable” conclusions rather than incontrovertible ones (Summa Theologiae I.1.8).

Suffering for the truth (Updated)

As many readers will have heard by now, last week Detroit’s new archbishop Edward Weisenburger suddenly fired three well-known professors at Sacred Heart Major Seminary: theologians Ralph Martin and Eduardo Echeverria and canon lawyer Edward Peters.  No official explanation has been given.  Martin has said that he was told only and vaguely that it had to do with “concerns about [his] theological perspectives.”  Echeverria has declined comment because of a non-disclosure agreement.  Peters says that he has “retained counsel.”

A postliberal middle ground on trade

In my latest article at Postliberal Order, I defend a postliberal middle ground position between free trade dogmatism and rigid protectionism, and argue that sound trade policy depends more on circumstances and prudential judgment than appeal to abstract principle.

Heeding Anscombe on just war doctrine

Elizabeth Anscombe’s “War and Murder” is a magnificent essay, an intellectually rigorous and morally serious defense of traditional Christian and natural law teaching against pacifists on the one side and, on the other, those who attempt to rationalize the unjust killing of civilians.  As she argues, both errors feed off of one another.  The essay is perhaps even more relevant today than it was at the time she wrote it.

Here is a summary of her position.  The pacifist holds that all killing is immoral, even when necessary to protect citizens against criminal evildoers within a nation, or foreign adversaries without.  This position is contrary to the basic precondition of any social order, which is the right to protect itself against attempts to destroy it.  It also has no warrant in the orthodox Christian tradition.  A less extreme but related error is the thesis that violence can never justly be initiated, but at most can only ever be justified in response to those who have initiated it.  In fact, Anscombe argues, what matters is not who strikes the first blow, but who is in the right.  For example, it was in her judgment right for the British to initiate violence in order to suppress chattel slavery.

A second Honorius?

Like his predecessor Honorius, Pope Francis failed clearly to uphold traditional teaching at a time the Church was sick from heresy.  So I argue in my contribution to a symposium on Francis in the latest issue of The Lamp.

Aquinas and prudential judgment

In contemporary debates in Catholic moral theology, a distinction is often drawn between actions that are flatly ruled out in principle and those whose permissibility or impermissibility is a matter of prudential judgment.  For example, it is often noted that abortion is wrong always and in principle, whereas how many immigrants a country ought to allow in and under what conditions are matters of prudential judgment.  But exactly what does this mean, and how do we tell the difference between the cases?

Talk it out

Time again for an open thread.   Now’s your chance to get that off-topic comment off your chest.  The burning philosophical or theological question you’ve been dying to raise?  That political rant you’ve been meaning to inflict on fellow readers of this blog?  Some tweet of mine that you wanted to complain about?  All fair game.  From real numbers to realpolitik, from That ‘70s Show to Kurtis Blow, from monads to gonads, there’s no limit to what you might talk about.  (Other, that is, than the demands of good taste and basic sanity.  So no trolling, please.)  Previous open threads archived here.